Level 20 Hacker

“Buffer Overflower”

That which is spiritual is completely separate from that which is physical. There is a reason why religion and politics are to never be mixed.

If god pooped that would make him a physical being allowing all to learn of/about him.

Plus if god truly existed and created us in his image then where are our omni-powers that he is theorized to have? And where is the proof? and don’t say the bible is proof enough cuz it is not. The bible was created by human hands. and humans are flawed there for everything created by man is flawed.

Level 48 Camwhore

Celerysteve is better than me in everyway imaginable

so then what is god? if he is nothing we could ever comprehend then what is the point? How could he have created the earth if he didn’t have the will to? Isn’t will a human trait, and he is as you guys are saying, not human. So he couldn’t have will so he couldn’t do anything at all. So then all we are left with is nothing?

Level 43 Troll

“Banned Camper”

Shii Posted:

I fail to see why excreting waste means you’re imperfect

man-man Posted:

pooping requires a digestive system and an bum to poop through. If god has these things then he must have a specific location in space where he keeps his bum, and hence the rest of his body, and thus would not be omnipresent.

Level 43 Troll

“Banned Camper”

man-man Posted:

Thus we see an impossible set of propositions. It cannot be the case that all of the following are true:

P1: god is omnipotent

P2: god is omnipresent

P3: god poops

This is actually the best anti-creationist argument I have ever heard. Most (if not all) Judeo-Christian worshipers believe that God is both omnipotent and omnipresent. If God is omnipotent, he should be able to do whatever he wishes, including excreting (as the humans do). However, if God can excrete, that implies a physical body, which contradicts the second proposition, as he is no longer omnipresent.

The third proposition is not even necessary, using arguments found in this thread, one cannot by omnipotent AND omnipresent at the same time.

—-

Now, to rebut my own argument, omnipresence can be a trait which can be chosen to be used or to not be used (this being possible due to omnipotence), therefore allowing God to perform “human” activities and functions in one form, and then being able to shift back to omnipresence.

Going even further, if one is omnipotent, he should be able to be omnipresent AND be in a single place (at a single time) at the same time.

All logic presented in this thread thus-far is flawed, due to omnipotence including the power of free will, and thus the power to choose to not be omnipresent (or even omnipotent). The theology is based upon “There is nothing God cannot do”, which means that God can also choose to no longer be omnipotent, or even to die (if He so wanted).

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

The way omnipresence is normally framed, implies being everywhere, at all times. I suppose omnipotence would imply being able to choose to not be somewhere, but that would be a willing negation of his omnipresence (downgrading to … polypresence? multipresence?). Omni-all gods tend to also be considered necessary facts of the universe – the ontological argument concludes that god must necessarily exist (as opposed to contingently existing) so there would be no way for him to not exist, although omnipotence would suggest that he could choose to do so (if he was truly necessary, such that there are no possible worlds that don’t contain god, then I imagine god’s self-annihilation would bring about the end of the universe). The ontological argument has gaping holes though, so take that however you like.

As far as I’m concerned, all that this semantic wrangling shows us is that the concept of god doesn’t make any sense, because it leads to all kinds of contradictions when you take his every quality to the “omni” level. Some would argue that god is greater than logic and is allowed to do things that are blatant contradictions of logic because he’s god… that reads like special pleading to me, “just inore how bat**** ****ing insane this is, and how it contradicts itself, because I’m talking about god”

Frankly, if a concept doesn’t make coherent logical sense, then it’s a failed idea. Tacking on “well he can just do that anyway because he’s god” doesn’t solve anything. Being omnipotent means you can be both the irresistible force and the immovable object at the same time, and the normal solution to that paradox is that only one of those things can possibly exist at once. Being omnipresent means denying any physical/spatial location, and leaves us wondering what the hell god’s supposed to be made of, that he can exist everywhere at once without taking up all the room. Being omniscient denies free will, because it would mean that time is a useless human construct without greater meaning, and actually we’re just moving through a fixed set of physical states towards a predetermined future.

Every time you really look at the qualities ascribed to god, you find contradictions of logic and common sense. I think the cognitive dissonance this generates is probably part of the reason that really strong believers can seem so insane. It’s easy to accept logic if you’re not too hot on god, and it’s easy to accept god if you’re not too hot on logic, but both at once … it’s like trying to force the like poles of magnets together (except maybe for the option of accepting both of them weakly, so you don’t force the magnets together too closely), but people tend to get pushed into one position or the other and take it up strongly, and making the leap in either direction requires a sudden and dramatic change in your beliefs.

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

Shii Posted:

Jesus Christ had a physical body, while yet still being fully God

This is a declaration from Christian faith, I don’t consider it any more logical than other articles of faith.

In simplest terms, Jesus can not have been god, because Jesus had qualities that god does not, and vice versa. A = B only if A and B are identical in all respects. As an example, Jesus had a definite physical location, and almost certainly pooped. If omnipresent, god exists in all places and all times simultaneously, and thus would find it hard to poop. Therefore Jesus =! god.

Saying something contradictory in another way, or declaring it as part of what you believe, or saying it with force or authority or whatever, none of that changes the fact that it contains a contradiction.

I can already sense the standard response to this… that I ‘just don’t understand’ the whole Jesus/god thing (or for that matter the trinity) but maybe the problem here isn’t me not understanding, maybe the concepts are just incomprehensible because they aren’t, in fact, logical – I’m an intelligent guy, I normally understand things given a little time, but the concept of god and the idea of a man being “fully god” have never threatened to make even the slightest bit of sense to me.

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

There are better bumaults on Creationism specifically, but pulling the rug with an argument against the existence of god also works… I’d like to see a god that can create anything whilst not existing.

Heh… reminds me of a parody of the “Greatest Conceivable Being” (aka Ontological) argument. The original argument says that god is the greatest conceivable being, and that it is greater to exist than to not exist, so therefore god must necessarily exist. It’s horribly flawed in a lot of ways, but the parody is quite neat too:

If god is the greatest conceivable being, then his creation (of the universe) must be the greatest conceivable creation. We measure the greatness of created things (e.g. works of art) by how difficult it is to create them, the skill demonstrated in creation, and the merits of the resulting creation. It is far more difficult to create something when you do not exist than when you do exist, therefore for the universe to be the greatest conceivable creation, and hence for god to be the greatest conceivable being, god must not exist.

—————

[EDIT] I saw your point better the second time I read it; an argument against god on the basis of incompatible traits (the omni’s) only works if you believe in a god with those traits, so you could still be a creationist by believing in a different god.

If I wanted to refute you from that position I’d look to the other arguments against creationism. That or ask what kind of god you do believe in, to form an argument against that kind of god existing.